The dispute between Town and City Parking and Smart Parking has been settled.
The verdict agreed between the two parties is that Town and City overvalued themselves by £1.2 million when they sold themselves to Smart Parking, and that no earn out payment is due.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Monday, 14 December 2015
Sunday, 13 December 2015
Picture of the week. UKPC issue charge for no amount
Thank you to Mr Mustard for this gem.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
ParkingEye system drivers shoppers away to rival centres
A report in the Worksop Guardian has confimed that ParkingEye's system is driving shoppers away to rival establishments.
Once shoppers get a parking charge they think twice about returning. A Worksop woman stated:
The difference in management systems makes a huge amount to the number of charges issued. Freedom of Information requests show that managing a car park in a responsible way results in almost all motorists obeying the rules and so incurring no penalties. Conversely, farming car parks the ParkingEye way results in large numbers of charges being issued to the detriment of motorists, landowners and the general public.
ParkingEye's talent at farming car parks to maximise the ability to issue parking charges allowed them to increase their profit from the £1.7 million reported to the Supreme Court in the Beavis case to £4.8 million the following year (£3.6 million if a pro-rata adjustment is made to take into account the 2014 period is 16 months not 12). This is an abysmal track record if you consider that truly successful car park management is to achieve full compliance without the need to issue charges and alienate your customers, driving them away to rival establishments.
B&Q reportedly terminated ParkingEye's contract because they were driving so many customers away with aggressive enforcement. Once a new car park management company was installed, the customer base gradually returned.
Not everyone agrees with The Prankster's analysis of course. The manager of the Priory Shopping Centre, David Aunins, has defended Parking Eye’s car parking management, which he says is ‘safe and secure’.
It is not immediately clear to The Prankster why adding two ANPR cameras makes a car park either safe or secure, but perhaps if you are mugged while crossing the road at the exact moment a car is entering or exiting then the ANPR pictures can be used to catch your attacker.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Once shoppers get a parking charge they think twice about returning. A Worksop woman stated:
I don’t shop in Worksop any more after my family were hit by two £100 fines for picking someone up. We now go to Meadowhall where it’s free and we don’t get pictures taken of us. It’s invasive and you have to mess around imputing your registration into the machine, which you will get fined for again if you get it wrong.It is clear that the system is not fit for purpose - there appears to be no genuine reason why a charge would be issued for picking someone up. This clearly indicates either the signs are deficient or the pay on exit system does not show the correct charge to be paid. Issuing charges for inputting a wrong registration is another trick used by the more disreputable end of the parking industry. Car park operators who offer a genuine parking management service have systems which detect when an incorrect number is entered, and help the motorist to enter a correct number. However, this greatly cuts down on the number of parking charges which can be issued. Parking companies such as ParkingEye rely entirely on income from parking charges and use systems which are hard to use and maximise the number of errors a motorist can make.
The difference in management systems makes a huge amount to the number of charges issued. Freedom of Information requests show that managing a car park in a responsible way results in almost all motorists obeying the rules and so incurring no penalties. Conversely, farming car parks the ParkingEye way results in large numbers of charges being issued to the detriment of motorists, landowners and the general public.
ParkingEye's talent at farming car parks to maximise the ability to issue parking charges allowed them to increase their profit from the £1.7 million reported to the Supreme Court in the Beavis case to £4.8 million the following year (£3.6 million if a pro-rata adjustment is made to take into account the 2014 period is 16 months not 12). This is an abysmal track record if you consider that truly successful car park management is to achieve full compliance without the need to issue charges and alienate your customers, driving them away to rival establishments.
B&Q reportedly terminated ParkingEye's contract because they were driving so many customers away with aggressive enforcement. Once a new car park management company was installed, the customer base gradually returned.
Not everyone agrees with The Prankster's analysis of course. The manager of the Priory Shopping Centre, David Aunins, has defended Parking Eye’s car parking management, which he says is ‘safe and secure’.
It is not immediately clear to The Prankster why adding two ANPR cameras makes a car park either safe or secure, but perhaps if you are mugged while crossing the road at the exact moment a car is entering or exiting then the ANPR pictures can be used to catch your attacker.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
ParkingEye shamelessly dredge up historic cases using Equita
On the back of their Supreme Court win ParkingEye have issued a huge mailshot dredging up historic cases, many over two years old. The Prankster posbag is full of complaints and queries from motorists about these letters.
The correspondence comes from Equita - both Equita and ParkingEye are controlled by Capita, so in essence this is a Capita-controlled exercise.
Although the Supreme Court found that a charge of £85 was valid, this is no longer enough for ParkingEye and they have over doubled this amount, issuing letters asking for £200.
In all the letters The Prankster has seen the letters contain the false statement 'ParkingEye Ltd has written to you recently...' In most cases the last contact was two years ago. In some cases this is the first letter the keeper has ever received.
The letter also contains a misleading reference to the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis. Although this is a binding precedent, it is of course only binding where the facts and circumstances are similar. It certainly does not justify a charge of £200, and there are many other defences which may mean the parking charge does not apply.
The Prankster therefore advises anyone disputing the charge to reply robustly to Equita.
Dear Equita,
The debt is denied. Please return the case to your principal
Debt Collection costs are therefore not appropriate and will be wasted costs.
I am prepared to use alternative dispute resolution to attempt to settle this matter and suggest either POPLA or the Consumer Ombudsman are appropriate bodies. Please note that courts may apply sanctions if an offer of ADR is ignored or unreasonably refused.
I am firmly of the belief this matter can be settled by ADR. However, if your client wishes to settle via court action please ensure practice directions are followed. Current directions are here:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
I will seek my full costs regardless of the eventual result if your client takes court action without first engaging in reasonable ADR.
The debt is denied for the following reasons.
(your reasons here - see the previous blog post for reason which may still be valid)
Additionally, I have not received the letter you state ParkingEye sent to me recently. Please provide a copy of this letter together with the date sent.
Please also provide a full breakdown of the £200 charge.
Please note that the case of ParkingEye v Somerfield establishes that debt collection costs of around £60 are not allowable.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The correspondence comes from Equita - both Equita and ParkingEye are controlled by Capita, so in essence this is a Capita-controlled exercise.
Although the Supreme Court found that a charge of £85 was valid, this is no longer enough for ParkingEye and they have over doubled this amount, issuing letters asking for £200.
In all the letters The Prankster has seen the letters contain the false statement 'ParkingEye Ltd has written to you recently...' In most cases the last contact was two years ago. In some cases this is the first letter the keeper has ever received.
The letter also contains a misleading reference to the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis. Although this is a binding precedent, it is of course only binding where the facts and circumstances are similar. It certainly does not justify a charge of £200, and there are many other defences which may mean the parking charge does not apply.
The Prankster therefore advises anyone disputing the charge to reply robustly to Equita.
Dear Equita,
The debt is denied. Please return the case to your principal
Debt Collection costs are therefore not appropriate and will be wasted costs.
I am prepared to use alternative dispute resolution to attempt to settle this matter and suggest either POPLA or the Consumer Ombudsman are appropriate bodies. Please note that courts may apply sanctions if an offer of ADR is ignored or unreasonably refused.
I am firmly of the belief this matter can be settled by ADR. However, if your client wishes to settle via court action please ensure practice directions are followed. Current directions are here:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
I will seek my full costs regardless of the eventual result if your client takes court action without first engaging in reasonable ADR.
The debt is denied for the following reasons.
(your reasons here - see the previous blog post for reason which may still be valid)
Additionally, I have not received the letter you state ParkingEye sent to me recently. Please provide a copy of this letter together with the date sent.
Please also provide a full breakdown of the £200 charge.
Please note that the case of ParkingEye v Somerfield establishes that debt collection costs of around £60 are not allowable.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
ParkingEye lose in court
Here is a report from a motorist who won this week against ParkingEye. This was during the period of bad weather.
So we just came out of Court. ParkingEye didn’t turn up but had asked for an adjournment due to the weather and the floods in Cumbria. ParkingEye are based in Chorley and their advocate from LPC Law was traveling from Newcastle. The Court staff knew of people who had traveled from Newcastle without any problem and the Judge himself pointed out that he had traveled from Burnley that morning without even any delays - and so the case was dismissed.
It is a win at the moment but not what I had in mind.
Our defence shows that we were not in the car park when they said we were, and so the accuracy of the ANPR was questioned.
We didn’t receive the “notice to keeper” but they said they could prove they sent it.
The land owners as well as ParkingEye themselves were contacted to request what authority ParkingEye had to run this car park.
In ParkingEye’s reply to our defence they did not show any proof at all of ANPR accuracy.
They were unable to produce any proof of postage of for the Notice to Keeper.
They did not provide any evidence whatsoever that they had permission to run the Snowdon Mountain Railway car park.
The Law society frowns upon an advocate entering court if their name and qualifications were not forwarded to the Court before the case. I asked the Court staff if they had and the reply was that they had not.
Prankster Note
These would probably be good enough grounds to win the case even if ParkingEye had turned up - ParkingEye therefore saved themselves the cost of a lawyer from LPC Law (usually £150-£300).
The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a Parking Charge for breach of contract of up to £85 may be allowable as a deterrent in some circumstances. To avoid over-eager judges striking out defences without properly reading them, it is advised that any defence against a parking charge raises other matters first.
Eg
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
So we just came out of Court. ParkingEye didn’t turn up but had asked for an adjournment due to the weather and the floods in Cumbria. ParkingEye are based in Chorley and their advocate from LPC Law was traveling from Newcastle. The Court staff knew of people who had traveled from Newcastle without any problem and the Judge himself pointed out that he had traveled from Burnley that morning without even any delays - and so the case was dismissed.
It is a win at the moment but not what I had in mind.
Our defence shows that we were not in the car park when they said we were, and so the accuracy of the ANPR was questioned.
We didn’t receive the “notice to keeper” but they said they could prove they sent it.
The land owners as well as ParkingEye themselves were contacted to request what authority ParkingEye had to run this car park.
In ParkingEye’s reply to our defence they did not show any proof at all of ANPR accuracy.
They were unable to produce any proof of postage of for the Notice to Keeper.
They did not provide any evidence whatsoever that they had permission to run the Snowdon Mountain Railway car park.
The Law society frowns upon an advocate entering court if their name and qualifications were not forwarded to the Court before the case. I asked the Court staff if they had and the reply was that they had not.
Prankster Note
These would probably be good enough grounds to win the case even if ParkingEye had turned up - ParkingEye therefore saved themselves the cost of a lawyer from LPC Law (usually £150-£300).
The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a Parking Charge for breach of contract of up to £85 may be allowable as a deterrent in some circumstances. To avoid over-eager judges striking out defences without properly reading them, it is advised that any defence against a parking charge raises other matters first.
Eg
- The event did not occur - the ANPR records were inaccurate
- The requirements for keeper liability were not established as the NTK was not received in the allowable timeframe
- ParkingEye are acting as agents and the risk remains with the landowner, so they have no authority to sue (locus standi) (Fairlie v Fenton)
A non-exhaustive list of possible other arguments are:
- The signage coverage was poor and did not establish a contract
- The signage wording was ambiguous
- The signage did not require the information required in distance contracts according to consumer law so any contract is non-binding
- The signage omitted material information which is against Consumer Law
- The signage had no planning permission
And finally, if the charge level is disputed, at least show the judge you are aware of the Beavis case Eg
- The charge is for breach but is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. ParkingEye have not shown that in this car park they meet the criteria laid down in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, and in particular that the charge is no greater than is necessary for deterrence. As this is binding case law, this case should be dismissed.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Saturday, 5 December 2015
MIL Collections fail in court again
MIL Collections Ltd are a debt collection company based in Truro. According to LinkedIn their MD is Alan Davies; Alan is also MD of Gleam Clean Service Ltd.
Alan is the sole shareholder, owning both shares in the company, having acquired the other share from his wife some time previously.
MIL have a fairly poor reputation as debt collectors and a quick Google search turns up a large number of complaints regarding the tactics they use. Although they are members of the CSA, in The Pranksters opinion many of the tactics they use are against the CSA code of practice.
Recently MIL have been buying old parking cases from parking companies for around £1 each, and have been attempting to monetise these by aggressively contacting the vehicle keeper and hugely inflating the cost. MIL move to court action as soon as possible, failing to follow practice directions for pre-action conduct. The idea appears to be that by filing a court claim either they scare the keeper into paying up, or the keeper fails to respond so they can get a default judgment..
The Prankster previously blogged about them in this blog entry.
Of course, one reason that the monies were never paid is often that they were not owed in the first place. Some clever people in the parking and debt collection industries have realised that this is no barrier to making money. By filing court claims in bulk, enough people will be scared into paying up that a lucrative income stream is almost guaranteed. While it is easy and cheap to file a bogus claim in this way, it is very tricky for the man in the street to know how to fight this properly, or to unwind it if things have got as far as a default judgment.
This week another MIL case made it to a county court hearing. The hearing took place in Manchester between MIL Collections and Dr S. Dr S was assisted by the British Motorists Protection Association with HO87 running the defence and preparing the documents, and John Wilke acting as lay representative. MIL Collections, smarting with their earlier court loss, decided to dispense with the services of their barrister. In fact, they even dispensed with the services of their own staff, not bothering to send anyone all the way from Truro to Manchester just to get a good spanking in court.
The defence had a number of good arguments about champterous assignment of debt, but these were not specifically tested in court, the judge deciding to rule on easier points.
The case was won due to failure to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA, the lack of a valid deed of assignment, no proof that the parking company had the right to issue tickets and no proof of the right to litigate.
The judge made it clear that MIL Collection's case was wholly deficient and made even more hopeless as the evidence was served late and was not filed with the court. Additionally, when the judge was shown the evidence served he was of the view that it did not meet court requirements anyway.
MIL Collections had not sought to excuse their non-attendance either.
In the costs hearing, John Wilkie argued that as MIL Collections had neither turned up nor notified the court they caused court and the defendant's time to be unnecessarily wasted. The claim was entirely deficient, as outlined in the defence and witness statement, and had no chance of succeeding. Had the defendant known the claimant was not coming they could have had a paper based hearing.
Because of their conduct and pursuing a wholly deficient and hopeless case ab initio it was entirely appropriate for a punitive costs order to be made, which would include Lay Representative costs. This would be under the 'unreasonable behaviour' provision (27.14.g) of the small claim track rules.
John Wilkie pointed out DDJ Buckley's judgment in the Forgione case, which the judge was aware of. The judge hemmed and hawed and finally agreed. He ruled that pursuing a hopeless case, serving late, failing to file, failing to turn up and wasting court time was certainly unreasonable behaviour and awarded the full costs asked for, which were defendant's loss of earnings, travel, and the full lay representative expenses, all to be paid withing 14 days or enforced.
The judge suggested a Third Party debt Order as MIL Collections had very kindly supplied their bank details, and Dr S agreed this was the best method for enforcement if required. It does appear that the courts are not happy with being used as speculative debt collectors by the likes of MIL Collections, Civil Enforcement Limited and a few others, and that word is going around the circuit.
Prankster Note
Buying the speculative debt off the parking company for one pound did not turn out to be the bargain MIL Collections were hoping for, and they are now several hundred pounds worse off.
Sadly many vulnerable people in similar cases will be tempted to cave in due to the bullying tactics of MIL Collections, and the fear that the debt may escalate. This will mean MIL only need to get paid for more cases than they lose to make the exercise profitable for them.
The Prankster advises people not to be a victim and to robustly defend themselves, following the procedures laid down by the courts and making it clear to MIL Collections they will be asking for punitive costs if the case gets as far as a hearing.
The Prankster will leave you with this linked-in endorsement of Alan Davis from his ex-colleague David West.
For someone who knows the debt industry inside out it does seem surprising so many basic errors were made regarding debt assignment and court procedure.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Alan is the sole shareholder, owning both shares in the company, having acquired the other share from his wife some time previously.
MIL have a fairly poor reputation as debt collectors and a quick Google search turns up a large number of complaints regarding the tactics they use. Although they are members of the CSA, in The Pranksters opinion many of the tactics they use are against the CSA code of practice.
Recently MIL have been buying old parking cases from parking companies for around £1 each, and have been attempting to monetise these by aggressively contacting the vehicle keeper and hugely inflating the cost. MIL move to court action as soon as possible, failing to follow practice directions for pre-action conduct. The idea appears to be that by filing a court claim either they scare the keeper into paying up, or the keeper fails to respond so they can get a default judgment..
The Prankster previously blogged about them in this blog entry.
Of course, one reason that the monies were never paid is often that they were not owed in the first place. Some clever people in the parking and debt collection industries have realised that this is no barrier to making money. By filing court claims in bulk, enough people will be scared into paying up that a lucrative income stream is almost guaranteed. While it is easy and cheap to file a bogus claim in this way, it is very tricky for the man in the street to know how to fight this properly, or to unwind it if things have got as far as a default judgment.
This week another MIL case made it to a county court hearing. The hearing took place in Manchester between MIL Collections and Dr S. Dr S was assisted by the British Motorists Protection Association with HO87 running the defence and preparing the documents, and John Wilke acting as lay representative. MIL Collections, smarting with their earlier court loss, decided to dispense with the services of their barrister. In fact, they even dispensed with the services of their own staff, not bothering to send anyone all the way from Truro to Manchester just to get a good spanking in court.
The defence had a number of good arguments about champterous assignment of debt, but these were not specifically tested in court, the judge deciding to rule on easier points.
The case was won due to failure to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA, the lack of a valid deed of assignment, no proof that the parking company had the right to issue tickets and no proof of the right to litigate.
The judge made it clear that MIL Collection's case was wholly deficient and made even more hopeless as the evidence was served late and was not filed with the court. Additionally, when the judge was shown the evidence served he was of the view that it did not meet court requirements anyway.
MIL Collections had not sought to excuse their non-attendance either.
In the costs hearing, John Wilkie argued that as MIL Collections had neither turned up nor notified the court they caused court and the defendant's time to be unnecessarily wasted. The claim was entirely deficient, as outlined in the defence and witness statement, and had no chance of succeeding. Had the defendant known the claimant was not coming they could have had a paper based hearing.
Because of their conduct and pursuing a wholly deficient and hopeless case ab initio it was entirely appropriate for a punitive costs order to be made, which would include Lay Representative costs. This would be under the 'unreasonable behaviour' provision (27.14.g) of the small claim track rules.
John Wilkie pointed out DDJ Buckley's judgment in the Forgione case, which the judge was aware of. The judge hemmed and hawed and finally agreed. He ruled that pursuing a hopeless case, serving late, failing to file, failing to turn up and wasting court time was certainly unreasonable behaviour and awarded the full costs asked for, which were defendant's loss of earnings, travel, and the full lay representative expenses, all to be paid withing 14 days or enforced.
The judge suggested a Third Party debt Order as MIL Collections had very kindly supplied their bank details, and Dr S agreed this was the best method for enforcement if required. It does appear that the courts are not happy with being used as speculative debt collectors by the likes of MIL Collections, Civil Enforcement Limited and a few others, and that word is going around the circuit.
Prankster Note
Buying the speculative debt off the parking company for one pound did not turn out to be the bargain MIL Collections were hoping for, and they are now several hundred pounds worse off.
Sadly many vulnerable people in similar cases will be tempted to cave in due to the bullying tactics of MIL Collections, and the fear that the debt may escalate. This will mean MIL only need to get paid for more cases than they lose to make the exercise profitable for them.
The Prankster advises people not to be a victim and to robustly defend themselves, following the procedures laid down by the courts and making it clear to MIL Collections they will be asking for punitive costs if the case gets as far as a hearing.
The Prankster will leave you with this linked-in endorsement of Alan Davis from his ex-colleague David West.
"Alan is one of the most generous people I have ever met and knows the debt industry inside out"
For someone who knows the debt industry inside out it does seem surprising so many basic errors were made regarding debt assignment and court procedure.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Friday, 4 December 2015
Motorist's car keyed after contesting parking charge
A motorist has reported their vehicle was keyed while parked at home following their appeal of a parking charge from a private parking company.
This may of course be a co-incidence, and may be the result of a rogue warden angry at not getting their bonus. However, if this has happened to you, please contact The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com with evidence of the keying, the parking charge and the appeal.
If a pattern emerges, this can then be taken further with the appropriate bodies.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
This may of course be a co-incidence, and may be the result of a rogue warden angry at not getting their bonus. However, if this has happened to you, please contact The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com with evidence of the keying, the parking charge and the appeal.
If a pattern emerges, this can then be taken further with the appropriate bodies.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)